Skip to comments.America Should Act in Self Defense Against Iraq For 9/11,OKC,1993 WTC Attacks
Posted on 09/05/2002 3:06:10 PM PDT by OKCSubmariner
Saddam Hussein of Iraq hired mercenaries from Baluchistan for his war on terror against the US even before the 1991 Gulf War.
Saddams Baluchi mercenaries have been very successful in attacking American targets and killing innocent American citizens in the 9/11, OKC and 1993 WTC Attacks.
Khalid Mohammed and his nephew Ramzi Yousef were Saddams Baluchi mercenaries who attacked America for Saddam and Iraq.
Middle East expert Lorie Mylroie has given eloquent proofs over the years of Saddams involvement in the 1993 WTC attack.
The FBI and DOJ publicly say Khalid Mohammed was a mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and the 1993 WTC bombing.
Ramzi Yousef is in Federal prison for his bombing of the WTC in 1993.
The FBI and DOJ and Bush White House have not yet told you that Khalid Mohammed was a mastermind of the OKC bombing and behind the meetings of Terry Nichols in the Philippines to plan the OKC bombing. They have not yet told you that the Abu Sayeff cell in the Philippines run by Khalid Mohammed and Ramzi yousef was filled with Iraqi agents besides just Khalid Mohammed and Yousef. In December 1995 the Philippine police arrested nine members of the Abu Sayeff terror group. Six of the nine members arrested were identified by the Philippine authorities to the US government as Iraqi agents. So counting Khalid Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, there were at least eight Iraqi agents involved in the Abu Sayef cell in the Philippines that helped Nichols plan and carry out the OKC bombing.
There is now a public debate about whether or not to go to war against Iraq and Saddam. The debate so far has been framed and deliberately limited by the White House and in Congress as to whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and if he will in the future use them sooner rather than later against the US.
It is possible that Congress and the American people and the world will not be adequately persuaded of the need to remove Saddam now based solely on the weapons of mass destruction arguments that may not yet be compelling and verifiable enough to enough people.
The case should be made by the White House to Congress and to the American people and to the world (UN, Europe,etc.) that the US has the right of self defense for the acts of war committed by Saddam and Iraq against Americans in the 9/11 attacks, the OKC bombing and the 1993 WTC attack. In fact these acts of war against the US are vastly more compelling and provable than weapons of mass destruction that Saddam has hidden but cannot be completely verified.
The FBI and CIA and previous administrations have many skeletons in their closet for their connivance, for their not stopping, and for their not telling the American people about the role of Iraq in the 9/11, OKC and 1993 WTC attacks against America. Please see my article FBI and DOJ Connivance Permeates, Interconnects Terror Attacks on the FreeRepublic.com dated August 15, 2002.
The White House should immediately and urgently make the strongest case possible against Saddam and Iraq, namely Saddams use of Iraqi agents in the attacks on Americans. If the White House fails to do so out of trying to protect FBI and administration failures in the past, then the White House would be performing a great disservice to America and could be held responsible for future Iraq attacks on Americans if the result should be that action is not taken against Iraq and Saddam soon enough
The White House should first worry about saving Americans from Iraq and Saddam before the White House worries about saving political careers and failed FBI and DOJ officials.
If Iraq was, indeed, involved in any of these attacks, the strongest possible case should be made to the American people.
We here on Free Republic -- and, importantly, yourself -- have built a persuasive body of circumstantial evidence for Iraqi involvement in each of these operations. Presumably, there are people within the administration who are even better informed...and have even more persuasive, if not conclusive, evidence of Iraqi involvement.
In my opinion, the only reason the administration is not forthcoming about this evidence at the present moment is that we are not yet ready to respond to the provocations.
However, the pace of preparation for an attack, along with the pace of disclosure (and promises of disclosure), has noticeably quickened in the past few weeks.
I suspect that, by the time the attack officially begins, we will know everything (or most everything). And just as Saddam has been at war with the US for years, without us being aware of it, I believe we are already at war with him -- unofficially, without the Democrats (or the media) knowing it.
You do realize " 7-11 " and " 9-11 " are only 2 digits off , don't you ???
I mean, c'mon here ! How much MORE proof do we need ?
Lesson from history: a little over a month ago I stood in a mass graveyard outside the city of St. Petersburg, Russia. I purposely went there as a visceral, visual reminder of what happens when people, leaders and nations of the world try to appease/make peace with madmen bent on world conquest and domination. This site contains over 186 mass graves. I know because I took the time to count each of them and to solemnly ponder their contents. THERE ARE OVER 490,000 PEOPLE BURIED THERE! People just like you and I, people who once lived, breathed, love and dreamed of bright futures for themselves and their children. Over 900, 000 people died in the city of St. Petersburg alone (200, 000 just in Jan-Feb 1942) and MOST of them were women and children. All of this happened because the leaders of the world, including Stalin, sought to appease a little madman by the name of Adolph Hitler.
A week later I went to London and visited the Imperial War Museum. There, encased in glass I saw the actual Munich pact letter signed by Hitler and Chamberlain in which Hitler "promised" in writing to end his aggression... promises always look good in writing. Europe believed his hollow promises, they tried to "contain" and "appease" Hitler, the exact same advice they are giving us today regarding Saddam... the result; HE ATTACKED THEM ANYWAY AND 80 MILLION PEOPLE DIED IN THE PROCESS... people like you and me, people like your children, your husbands, your wives, your grandparents.
Like Hitler, Saddam has given his word and made promises for the sole purpose of keeping us from stopping his WMD programs and his ultimate aims for aggression. The World needs to be reminded that to date HE HAS KEPT NONE OF THEM. History teaches us this lesson; if we do not deal with and stop Saddam now, the cost will be far, far greater to accomplish this in the future. So
"Why act now?" Because this is the reality of our current situation; Muslim fundamentalists all over the world have declared jihad on America. They want us (civilians, men, women and children) DEAD and are actively plotting to kill, enslave and destroy us. All of this is taking place at the same time Saddam continues to produce weapons grade Anthrax, VX gas, and hastily works on developing nukes and these other "goodies" to give to toady Muslim terrorists to use against America. A report out this week details the "worst case scenario" 3 MILLION DEAD due to the release of 250 pounds of weapons grade Anthrax in either LA or San Francisco
America and it's leaders and people will either learn from history or repeat it. History provides us and our Allies with all the reasons and justification we need to preemptively go to war with Iraq and to rid the world of Saddam. The only other option the is to wait until he or one of his Muslim lackeys hits us and thousands or millions die.
The appeasers advise us to "wait," do nothing, to sit around, contain, appease and take Saddam at his word... until we are attacked, the problem is then it will be too late.
Our response must be that of G. BUSH sr.: 'Sorry, ... NOT GONNA DO IT... WOULDN'T BE PRUDENT!"
Why is it that the East Bloc was almost immediately replaced by a new Axis of Evil, the Trans-Asian Axis? And why doesn't anyone want to talk about the 7/16/2001 treaty? Instead, empty platitudes about great powers being "united in the War on Terrorism." And yet, those great powers formerly hostile to the West, and as recently as mid 2001 issuing anti-American threats, conveniently said they were "allied" after the 9/11 attacks that they themselves underpinned with their support of terrorist proxies!
I have had that exact conversation too. Liberals used to say, "Bush (41) wimped out. He should have finished the job. Saddam is still there, so the Gulf War accomplished nothing."
I used to reply, "But the UN resolution never included that. We were only authorized to go into Kuwait. The coalition would have fallen apart."
But now all the "Bush should have taken out Saddam" liberals seem to have disappeared. They are nowhere to be found. Where are they when we need them? Perhaps we should put out an "Amber Alert" for them.
The OKC-Iraq connection is finally making its way into big media!
The following quotation from Rush Limbaugh's website was recently posted here on FR as part of the thread, Bill Gertz & El Rushbo Talk "Breakdown":
Micah Morrison's huge piece in Thursday's Wall Street Journal covers a lot of the ground Gertz first strode over on the Iraq-Oklahoma City connection. Morrison has written a long piece based on a couple of books, the flash point of which is that Iraq was involved in that bombing. There's evidence that the government just stopped with McVeigh, rather than dig into whether a foreign government was involved. (emphasis mine...)
Maybe Rush will cease to label all of us who have tried to point out the lies re OKC foisted upon America by the Clinton/Reno FBI...as 'wacko conspiracy theorists'.
BUT...does El Rushbo really think it was "ground Gertz first strode over on the Iraq-Oklahoma City connection"?
If so, Ol' Rush has had his head where the sun never shines -- for many years!
TXnMA (No Longer!!!)
Thank you for bringing this personal insight to our attention.
Now OKC is supposed to be proof of an Islam jihad. Perhaps Khalil and Hussaini are just hired guns...like the FBI/ATF. Just dust off another rationalization when it suits you.
You either have an agenda OK, or you are easily manipulated.
True, probably, but I'll go to my standard rant -
Administrations do not rat out prior administrations.
If they are to make the case that OKC was an islamic attack and not the act of a couple of back country ex-military, probably right wing, militia wannabe/wackos; it will be attributed to some 'new and unexpected' piece of evidence and NOT because anyone came clean on the original cover up.
I have followed the work of OKCSubmariner for years and it is clear he has only one agenda - to expose the truth about the OKC bombing.
He has interviewd key witnesses, performed intensive individual research, assisted other researchers and journalists, and lobbied law makers in order to present to the public the truth about the OKC bombing.
I can understand how someone could easily speculate on the motives of two consecutive Administrations that have tried to cover up the truth about the OKC bombing. OKCSubmariner's work has been based on factual evidence. From what I have read, he leaves speculation on motives to others. The facts are the key to understanding the truth in this complex matter, and he has done more than anyone I know of to put the facts on the table. Your speculation about OKCSub's motives and his work is unfair, in my opinion.
Remember, Elohim was replete with FBI stooges, what makes you think FR is any different?
I am sorry, but this comment goes right over my head. OKCSub is very effective in presenting facts, if you have any facts substantiating "the Mossad hand in the OKC bombing", I would be very interested in the factual evidence.
Funny theory, considering nobody from Elohim City was ever arrested or charged in the case.
And the idea that OKCsubmariner is an "FBI stooge" is definitely the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted on FR this month.
We all need a good laugh on Friday nights, and I hope Pat gets one.
Note to rubbertramp: I think you better read a few more of Pat's posts before you make any more allegations like that. We would REALLY be in trouble if your charge was true!
Why isn't Bush making the case to the American people, to the UN and Europe that the US has the right of self defense agsinst Iraq given Iraq and Saddam roles in 9/11, OKC bombing and the 1993 WTC attack?
Why isn't Bush using Perl's info and the evidence posited in the lawsuit described by this article?
9/11 SUIT TIES SADDAM TO 10 YRS. OF AID FOR OSAMA
New York Post ^ | 9/09/02 | JOHN LEHMANN
Posted on 09/09/2002 1:05 AM Pacific by kattracks
September 9, 2002 -- Iraq sponsored Osama bin Laden's terrorists for 10 years leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks by supplying high-powered weapons, fake passports and training in airline hijackings, court papers say. Saddam Hussein's sons, Qusay and Uday Hussein, are portrayed as key players in the terror alliance, convincing their father that an Iraq-al Qaeda partnership was the most effective weapon in deflecting U.S. attempts to topple his regime and inflicting revenge for the humiliating Gulf War defeat.
Baghdad's relations with bin Laden had become so intimate in the months before the World Trade Center attack that a top Iraqi doctor, kidney specialist Mohammed Khayal, was dispatched to Afghanistan for three days in May 2001, to treat bin Laden's kidney problems, the papers say.
The civil suit against Iraq, filed last week on behalf of 1,400 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and their families, relies on confidential briefings by ex-CIA officers, interviews with Iraqi defectors, al Qaeda members' testimonies at the African embassy bombing trial and Iraqi and American press reports, according to Manhattan law firm Kreindler and Kreindler.
Before U.N. inspectors were thrown out in 1998, they suspected Iraq was training Islamic terrorists at a secret camp, known as Salman Pak, where simulated hijackings were allegedly carried out in a Boeing 707 fuselage.
U.S. intelligence officials cited in the $1 trillion lawsuit believe Iraqi intelligence agents had direct contact with at least two Sept. 11 hijackers, Zaid Samir Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi, in the United Arab Emirates in the spring of 2000, only weeks before the pair arrived in America.